Posted
by
kdawson
on Friday May 22, 2009 @07:57AM
from the but-who-needs-CDs dept.

eldavojohn writes "So you're an aspiring band and you haven't signed with a record label. Maybe you've got a fan base interested in purchasing your stuff but you're not really into accounting? Enter Amazon's partnership with TuneCore, a CD printing and music distribution service. You want to sell a full album on Amazon of you brushing your teeth? $31. And you get about 40% back on sales, so selling nine digital copies of your CD will put you back in the black. There you have it, public availability on one of the largest online commerce sites for $31 — no RIAA involved!" TuneCore's CEO put it this way: "As an artist, you have unlimited physical inventory, made on demand, with no [sic] upfront costs and worldwide distribution to anyone who orders it at Amazon.com."

I for one wait to see the lawsuit the RIAA is drawing up to bring down upon Amazon for squelching their draconian business practices by violating their 'copyright' on 'distribution of artistic works of an audio based nature'

I for one wait to see the lawsuit the RIAA is drawing up to bring down upon Amazon for squelching their draconian business practices by violating their 'copyright' on 'distribution of artistic works of an audio based nature'

You're thinking of the National Music Publishers' Association [nmpa.org], which controls the rights to record cover versions and licenses them through its Harry Fox Agency. Your "RIAA" guess was close because a lot of labels in the RIAA are under the same management as publishers in the NMPA.

I know several up-and-coming musicians, and putting out their first couple of CDs is always a financial adventure. If these guys can produce professional-looking packaging on a one-off basis, it could be just what struggling musicians need!

The fact that it shows how irrelevant the big labels are becoming is just icing on the cake.

The "professional" look seems to be what's missing here from the Print CD's. It looks like you must choose from a set of "templates" to print your cd on, which are all on par with what local demos looked like at my Junior High School, I.E. Photo of random stuff with Super-Photoshop filters applied.

The only other concern here, is what quality of sound is on the CD's. I've never used tunecore, so do you just submit MP3's of your music, or do you submit lossless files, and they convert them to mp3 for you?

We have found.wav files to be the most reliable and therefore recommend them first and foremost. Remember that they must be set at a 44.1 khz sample rate, 16 bit sample size and the channel set to stereo. Not sure how to convert your music? - Check out our tutorial.

What format must my artwork be in, in order to upload to TuneCore?

Artwork can be in one of the following file formats: JPG, GIF or PNG. The image must be a perfect square and at least 1600x1600. All artwork must be in best-quality RGB Color mode (including black and white images) and must have a resolution of at least 72 dpi. You may not include: email addresses, URLs, any other contact information or any pricing information. You must include both the artist name and album title on the artwork and remove any stickers or other items from your artwork in case you are scanning it in from a physical CD."

I'm certain that, because people aren't so bright, there'll be a lot of "CD containing audio derived from mp3s that came from ripping a burned CD that was produced from.aacs, that were compressed from the output of a ten dollar ADC connected to a microphone taken from a 'Barbie's Kiddie Karaoke' machine" stuff floating around; but it looks like the service itself supports perfectly sensible upload options.

The only other concern here, is what quality of sound is on the CD's. I've never used tunecore, so do you just submit MP3's of your music, or do you submit lossless files, and they convert them to mp3 for you? If this is a CD of mp3's burned to an album, this is the most useless idea ever.

If the submission is in MP3, it could be LAME at 256 kbps ABR. Have you been able to ABX that against the lossless source?

I could legitimately see this as being the beginning of the end for the RIAA, and I've never thought that before. It makes sense that it would take a big media vendor with a well-established user community, combining manufacturing with sales.

This would be fantastic if I were a musician. No inventory. No worrying about manufacturnig. And you get a percentage of revenue that you won't see anywhere else. The general Amazon community will make marketing a *lot* easier than it would be otherwise. All in all, it seems to make the RIAA meaningless.
I really think indie bands might be able to make this work. I'm looking forward to shopping for music on this and know the RIAA ain't getting a dime.

It would be nice if this helps break the RIAA, but I think it unlikely. All this really does is create the ability to cheaply distribute CDs which are a dying medium. Artists already have the ability to self distribute digital copies. So what is the big deal ?

Producing a quality product that meets a real need at a price that people are willing to pay is only about 30% of success. The other 70% is marketing.

This service does nothing to help with marketing so there will be a million

Artists already have the ability to self distribute digital copies. So what is the big deal ?

I think it is a big deal for marketing to have a central platform - nobody would look up an artist's site and key in credit card info etc... unless they know and like the band already. An Amazon "indie" bestseller list, and a centralized storefront gives far more exposure to artists with far less work involved. (Just think of the software equivalent: selling on the iPhone appstore vs. a trying to sell the equivalent application for an equally popular Nokia phone from your own website...)

As for the marketing bit - the RIAA sponsored artists are also _statistically_ unlikely to succeed unless they are one of the handful that get picked for payola and million-dollar ad budgets... This just makes the non-top-100 album, which was previously pretty much a loss-making proposition for RIAA artists, a viable avenue. And if you look away from M-TV and ClearChannel, there are oodles of niche magazines and subculture sites which could easily push an unknown artist to 2,000 sales - previously not worth the effort, now generating a year's salary.

Tell that to mall retailers who are employing out of work (laid off) skilled IT people. Tell that to (legal) immigrants with no marketable skills. Tell that to people who dropped out of high school/did not go to college/dropped out of college. People age 18-25 need to eat too. Preferably without working 2+ jobs without health insurance because their employer won't schedule them for more than 39 hours a week to avoid it.

You seriously underestimate that thing "intertubes";)Just wait for Pandora and such but only for RIAA free music. It will take time, but it will happen. There is a big chance it will even happen with Amazon's blessing, just by checking a box when uploading music "I agree you to use my music for marketing purposes". Amazon get's a big fat cut from selling not RIAA music as they don't need to pay RIAA anymore.

Artists already have the ability to self distribute digital copies. So what is the big deal ?

Amazon. Now it's being sold through a site (Amazon) that people actually go to, as opposed to some no-name. Another difference is that Amazon has the money to possibly decide "You know what? We want to become the new music cartel, which we will do by actually treating musicians well." If bands get the idea that Amazon could actually market them, that might be more attractive than a label contract. What bands have to do is decide that long-term freedom and profitability are better than the lure of the advance they'll get from the label.

You're probably right that the CD itself is less important than the distribution, but if this works I expect they'll figure that out.

We'll see how it plays out, but if they start using their massive data mining capabilities to sell new bands to people the same way they sell new books...seriously, this could get interesting.

It's not cheap at first glance, but it couldn't be more obvious that it is cheap, if you take everything involved into account. I'm just a bit afraid of the response from RIAA. They proved time and time again that they start suits with or even without a solid reason, so I guess it won't take long before they will say that this service should be taken down immediately.Which would be a shame.

what basis does the RIAA have to sue, anyway? if an artist is unsigned, and not part of the industry, the RIAA does not 'represent' them

Unpaid royalties for a cover version. The National Music Publishers' Association collects royalties for cover versions through its Harry Fox Agency, and a lot of publishers in the NMPA are under the same management as labels in the RIAA. Even if you set out not to record cover versions, you could be writing one and not even know it [slashdot.org]. Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music, 420 F. Supp. 177 (S.D.N.Y. 1976).

There are lots of elements used in the "Music Engine." One of those crucial elements is radio play. Another is wide-spread marketing. And still another is hiring girls to scream during performances. (Didn't you know? Get a handful of girls to scream during a performance causes other females to start screaming and they begin to believe they "love" this music and/or the performers. I know this flies in the face of common sense, but it works.)

I'm sorry, but unless you want to be the next Hoobastank or some such nonsense, those things are completely unnecessary.

If you want to actually sell enough CDs (or novels, or software, or greetings cards, or whatever) to make anything like a living, you need marketing.

If you write the Great American Novel, put it up on Lulu, and wait for the income to roll in, you'll sell 20 copies if you're lucky. To do better you've got to send review copies to magazines and web sites, persuade them you're worth interviewing for an article, get some viral marketing going for your product etc.

The same would go for a CD, even if you're not going for the mainstream. Get a reputation for live shows. Get written about in the specialist press. Get played on specialist radio shows or net radio. Get blogged about.

The OP's right. Traditional record labels do all this stuff, and that's part of where the money goes.

Japanese amateur (doujin) artists have been self-publishing professional-quality albums for years now. No RIAA, no middlemen: they set up a booth at a convention and sell it. And then, afterwards, they sell extra copies from their website. It seems to work well enough: some single fandoms have produced hundreds if not thousands of albums [nyaatorrents.org].

Isn't it amazing what you can do when you prioritize actually making music [x264.nl] over trying to get rich?

And don't think that the Japanese have it easier with regard to music copyright enforcement: the problem is actually so great there that file-traders have been forced to use anonymous P2P systems like Share and Winny.

Who's going to feed all of these underprivileged lawyers once they stop being hired to sue students, 10 year old girls and dead grandmothers? Think of the henchmen! Won't somebody pleeeeeeeeeeease think of the henchmen!

The $31 is per YEAR, basically setting up an account like you would with some of those "work from home" outfits, but for a reasonable price. The TFA states that "all other costs are passed on to the buyer". What those costs work out to I don't know, but if you can sell a stamped CD at $10 and still make a buck or two minimum, then you're not doing bad.

What I want to know is how a major stamping operation can retool so easily between different CD's that they can still do this economically?

if Apple would do something like this with digital distribution on iTunes, where artists could upload their music and get the same 70/30 split as devs get for iPhone apps. The whole RIAA/ASCAP/BMI paradigm needs a good hard kick in the pants.

From the TuneCore-FAQ [tunecore.com]:"What format must my artwork be in, in order to upload to TuneCore?[...] You may not include: email addresses, URLs, any other contact information or any pricing information."

You can't promote your band's website on the front cover. Think about it: Does iTunes want you to use them as a means of spreading the word about your band to the masses, only to have the album cover image on iTunes direct iTunes shoppers to the band's website where they can buy it for cheaper through something like Nimbus? Not likely.

Go ahead and put whatever you want inside the CD jacket, though. Who the hell wants their URL on the cover anyway?

The service being offered depends on them taking a 60% cut of any sales. By providing your contact information, it would enable artists to direct buyers to an alternative location (such as their own website), which could offer the CD at a lower price while still giving the artist a larger cut (100% minus production/shipping costs). They're understandably not interested in offering an unlimited advertising service for a flat rate of $31.

Ok, here the fixed cost is $31 and you get 40% of the sales.What are these values when using RIAA middle man? If there it's also 40% or less of the sales, they got pretty much owned. If you get more % of the sales, then there's a point where it's more profitable to use RIAA than Amazon:).

In law school, a bunch of us formed "The Learned Hands" and laid down some tracks. I had seen an ad for TuneCore somewhere on the web, so we uploaded our album for distribution. Sadly, having graduated school, the band no longer exists, but it's cool to say that our original music has been heard in Germany and the UK (Someone streamed "Ten Point Buck" and "Sleepy Hollow").

My experience with TuneCore was great! The initial costs were very low - I think it's like a dollar per track, and a dollar per online music store. And what do you know, our music is available on iTunes, Napster, Rhapsody, eMusic, all over the world! Depending on the vendor, you get one or two cents every time the song is streamed, and for downloads, it's usually 65% or 70% of the purchase price. Uploaded the tracks in FLAC format too, actually, and everything turned out swell.

This is the type of innovation that is changing the music industry, and I don't think the RIAA knows how to, or even can, keep up.

The problem for my band has been step three, since we no longer officially exist (Singers are in CO and Philly, bassist in VT, and I'm moving to BFE), but we did sell 3 copies on AmazonMP3 and a few tracks on iTunes, plus about $0.76 worth of streaming on Napster and Rhapsody.

In conclusion, TuneCore allows Joe Sixpack to (sort of) achieve his rockstar dreams, at least in terms of getting the music out there and making it available.

This is not entirely true in Europe, where licenses are still restricted by the artist copyright agencies. I've got my music distributed through Tunecore, which is an aggregrator [gowildchild.com] and still I am missing a lot of income because my artist rights are not fully defended through exclusive contracts via a private company...

This is managed by Sabam, our RIAA in Belgium, which demands exclusive contracts like many others in Europe. They demand everything or nothing; which will limit the artist to promote and distribute his music without paying blood money [logosfoundation.org].

Any distribution would cost us money, copy to cd is a minimal license of 150 pieces limited to the cd which you have subscribed for;

Copy to USB key would cost money too with a minimal amount of blood distribution money;

Free licenses wouldn't really be free, because they will collect royalties on the ARTIST NAME (in other words: there is no such thing as free music!);

The artists creations will all belong to this agency, even after death;)

IF we don't sign up: we won't be defended for the music we create, loosing a lot of income which gets paid through Sabam..

Sabam collects royalties on parties anyways, also on Creative Commons works of artists having a contract with them!

Without our artist agencies backing up true royalty rights of the common artist; Tunecore (or any aggregrator); on-line store or physical sales and sales agreements will limit the artist for full coverage. Billboards, radio rights, artist representation, cd pressing and copyrights are being repressed from the common people as we speak. Children are being limited with their creative ideas [annemievanriel.be] because Sabam deletes their creations! It has to stop somewhere....

By loosening up the copyrights a bit, the artist can choose his own distribution model and domains, while still getting royalty incomes from radio, television and cd-sales; also new artists will have a lot more chance to get on the bandwagon of the media industry. Maybe that's why they are so afraid of it, accepting such model; I don't know...

While this looks good for low quantities, a lot of people don't like burned CD-Rs which these will probably be (but I'll hold off judgement on that until the service is launched).

If you are selling 1000CDs, the deal isn't so great. If you go direct to a pressing plant you can get 1000 CDs made for $999. If you match Amazon's $8.98 price, your profit will be $7,899 minus postage costs, which will be zero if you sell at your live gigs, or at most $4,000 if you sell them all through a distributor like CD Baby.

In comparison the Amazon deal would give you just $3590 profit (with postage paid), but you won't have any stock to sell at gigs or mail out for promotion unless you buy it at retail, you're limited to just the packaging they support (no gatefolds, digipacks, free postcards, signed copies, 2CD sets etc.), and unlike mailing them yourselves, you don't get to build up a mailing list of fan's addresses, which can be invaluable later in your carreer.

No, no, no. You, the artist, pay them $31 to get started and have them take you on. Then they sell the albums at a "normal" price. RTFA... Although, I also blame/. for increasingly bad summaries these days.

It was my understanding that the band paid $31 as sort of a "starting fee". After that initial $31, there is nothing more to pay (that is, if I understood what I read correctly). They're not trying to -sell- the discs for $31 a pop.

It was my understanding that the band paid $31 as sort of a "starting fee". After that initial $31, there is nothing more to pay (that is, if I understood what I read correctly). They're not trying to -sell- the discs for $31 a pop.

You're close, it's $31 a year. Which is why there's no "upfront costs" as the quote says at the bottom of the summary but instead a $31/year. Which is still really really cheap. Interestingly enough, Wired uses "upfront" costs to describe it, from the article:

Tunecore will charge just $31 a year in upfront fees to handle a 10-track CD from pressing to delivery, passing all other costs through to the buyer. In other words, the service promises to remove nearly all of the risks of short-run CD manufacturing, which can cost musicians hundreds or even thousands of dollars for discs that rarely sell enough to cover expenses.

I think people are missing the big picture where you don't have to go to multiple services for your music. You'll be able to buy big names like U2 and Weezer right next to little high school rock bands and indie artists. You make that possible so that the people don't know whether they're buying RIAA or not and who knows? Maybe the musician will decide the RIAA route is not really worth it?

I think people are missing the big picture where you don't have to go to multiple services for your music.

Not only does this put indie bands next to U2, but it even opens the doors for a whole new level of artist "below" the indie artist, because you no longer have to drop a couple grand to press a thousand CDs.

Currently, if you want to sell a professionally made CD (ie. not a CD-R), you pretty much have to order at least 1000 of them. But what about bands who know they're not going to sell that many? Sure, CDBaby will take as few as 5 discs into their inventory if that's all you think you're going to sell, but what do you do with the other 995 you had to manufacture in order to be able to manufacture any at all?

With this service, if 5 is all you're going to sell, then 5 is all that will be produced, and the total cost to you is only $31 -- which, to most artists, is worth it even if they don't make that money back in sales.

I don't know. You would have to be pretty committed to music to even know about this service. Committed fans are (I believe) happy to spend more money if they know that a significant percentage is going to the artist.

In some ways it's like being an old-fashioned patron of the arts, where you're paying the band so that they can afford to continue making music you like, rather than paying the RIAA $18 for a CD of songs that the artist has already been paid for. (Assuming it's one of the 95% of albums that nev

This is America, my friend. It can't be MY fault that I didn't read the article and misunderstood the summary. The article and summary were poorly written and therefore confused me. The writers should be forced to pay me for the time it took me to reply in error and for the public humiliation of being a victim of their poor writing.;-)

Tunecore will charge just $31 a year in upfront fees to handle a 10-track CD from pressing to delivery, passing all other costs through to the buyer.

And

If one of Amazonâ(TM)s 80 million customers buys your 10-song CD on Amazon for $8.98, youâ(TM)ll receive $3.59

However,

one obvious drawback to this model is that you canâ(TM)t sell an on-demand CD at shows, where enthusiastic fans are most likely to pick one up.

That being said, if anyone here wants to potentially earn some money. Create a mobile (or iphone) app that will allow you to buy the CD from amazon, as well as download the tracks (DRM free) to your mobile device there and then. Perhaps using the barcode apps. This would be the best of both (plus another) worlds.

...as opposed to getting about 50 cents to a dollar on each CD, and that's if you're lucky to be Madonna or someone already famous...

I'd say it's a very good deal.

one obvious drawback to this model is that you canÃ(TM)t sell an on-demand CD at shows, where enthusiastic fans are most likely to pick one up.

I don't think there would be anyone stopping the band from buying the CDs from Amazon for $9 and selling them at the concert for $15, with an autograph and some booklet, or for something like $25-50 with a signed t-shirt and booklet.

They'd only lose about 5$ on each CD, but in the end it may still be better than ordering and paying in advance for a 500-1000 batch of discs at a duplication factory.

For TuneCore, the deal expands its primary business helping indie artists get digital distribution through online outlets such as iTunes, Napster and Amazon MP3. TuneCore will now compete directly with CDBaby, the current leader in low-volume CD manufacturing and distribution. CDBaby charges $278 for 100 discs, although it recently lowered its minimum order to just five copies.

I've been a massive fan of CDBaby ordering discs straight from people like Anni Rossi but it has a minimum order those artists have to meet. I don't like the idea of a band having to buy up 500 or 100 or even 5 copies. Instead a flat fee of $31 for the artist makes me excited that this could really be big for indie artists... I think CDBaby's success is proof that this even cheaper alternative could be a massive success. Let's hope Amazon allows you a 30 second preview and review ratings to quickly separate the wheat from the chaff.

Get into the iTunes store.

While iTunes would be slightly bigger, Amazon is a big leap for Tunecore and I'm happy to see it even on this level.

> Instead a flat fee of $31 for the artist makes me excited that this could really be big for indie artists

Wow, yeah.

So this basically reduces the major labels to their back catalog. No one that knows about this service would sign unless they already have major sales - and that's an even STRONGER argument for using this service. You retain all rights, get 40% of the take, and costs you one lunch bill?

What freaks me out is that the labels, after staring this in the face for decades, still can't figure out how to sell their catalog. They have 10,000,000 songs in the database, but the only thing they can figure out is how to sell the newest 40.

No one that knows about this service would sign unless they already have major sales...

Unfortunately this still doesn't provide a good alternative to one important service the major record labels provide: promotion.

Just because you put your independent band up on MySpace and SonicBids and your own website and sell your songs on iTunes and your CD on CDBaby doesn't magically make everyone in the world suddenly know you exist and want to buy your stuff. Somehow they still have to stumble across you in the first place, out of the trillions of other bands who have done the same as you.

This Amazon service is awesome, and it's part of a much larger trend that will ultimately make the major labels obsolete, but there's still more work to be done.

Unfortunately this still doesn't provide a good alternative to one important service the major record labels provide: promotion.

Well, this is the essence of what the future of the Record industry is, isn't it? You have two distinct businesses that are finally getting separated. On the one hand, you have the music sales group which makes money based on sales of the actual music. On the other, you have a marketing/promotion group which makes money off of concerts and the like. The former is a dead business model that'll go away with services like the one mentioned in this story. The latter is something that an agent or a marketing company or a PR firm can do. Really, this is what a record company will eventually evolve to.

The latter is something that an agent or a marketing company or a PR firm can do. Really, this is what a record company will eventually evolve to.

I agree, your post is spot-on.

The first thing that has to happen though is to get the record companies to not be so damn dangerous. Pull their fangs.

They killed internet radio [usatoday.com] because of ideas like this, you know. They still have enough power to get insane laws like this one [dailykos.com] passed (you actually have to pay the RIAA to broadcast your own unlicensed non-RIAA member music if you can imagine that!) And they'll do anything they can to remain relevant.

Free money and piles of it - who wouldn't fight for that?

So good job Amazon (never thought I'd say that) and keep chipping away at these jerks. Eventually they'll go the way of the dodo.

Most stations won't even open the package. College stations might, but mainstream ones aren't interested.

Get out and PLAY at better venues.

That works locally, but what about the rest of the world?

Get out, play for people, get Cd's in the hands of people that will play it on the air.

I'm not saying that it can't be done, and I certainly don't advocate bands sitting on their asses and expecting to become instant multi-millionaires because they recorded an album. But marketing music is hard, especially in a world that has as many bands as this one has. It takes a lot of effort to stand out and get noticed, and you have to recognize that just because you may be good at writing and playing songs doesn't mean you're magically good at marketing those songs. Most bands need someone with knowledge and experience to handle that for them.

That helps, but it isn't what really matters. Besides promotion, the biggest thing labels offer is a distribution model. Have you seen the end of the aisle displays at Best Buy and Walmart? You don't get those by being a talented artist, or by "getting off your ass", you get them because they have deals with record labels. If Best Buy wants to sell the big name artists, they will have to sell and advertise some of the smaller bands too. Getting played on the radio is very similar. While there isn't outright

Just because you put your independent band up on MySpace and SonicBids and your own website and sell your songs on iTunes and your CD on CDBaby doesn't magically make everyone in the world suddenly know you exist and want to buy your stuff. Somehow they still have to stumble across you in the first place, out of the trillions of other bands who have done the same as you.

This is where I think the future of the recording labels lie. Amazon and iTunes (as well as other services) have shown that distribution is being taken out of the labels' hands. Now Amazon is working to take manufacturing out of their hands also. Recording has been practically out of their hands for awhile now. (Recording artists can buy what used to be thought of as professional level gear for relatively little money now.) The only thing left is Promotion.

The way I see the future of labels (if you'll even be able to call them that) is this: Band X wants to record some songs and sell them. They buy the equipment to record, sign up with Amazon/Apple/whoever to manufacture/distribute, and then sign up with Label A for promotion. Label A gets a cut of the sales, but doesn't own any rights to the music. If Band X is unhappy with how Label A is promoting them, they can drop the label and move on. Label A gets a final paycheck (for work done up to contract termination) and then the next promotion label gets the sales cut paychecks. Labels will have an incentive to treat their bands well and increase sales because otherwise they (the labels) don't get paid. The current labels will fight this tooth and nail, of course, but I think that it is almost inevitable.

No one that knows about this service would sign unless they already have major sales

I don't think that's true. People want more than to break even on the cost of a CD, they want fame and success. If you want your song played on the radio or a music video on MTV, you still need to go through a major label.

I'm not saying this is a good thing. It's a pretty strong financial argument against the labels, but some people want to be famous, too.

I think you're assuming that the majority of consumers care whether a given musician is considered art, or are even capable of telling the difference.

Artists make art that they think is good. Fame/Success/Money-seekers make a product that will satisfy the desires of a large number of people. Do you really think good art will ever replace commercial art? Good art by its very nature challenges people, and most people don't want to be challenged. They want to go out and dance and party and get laid. And that

I've been a massive fan of CDBaby ordering discs straight from people like Anni Rossi but it has a minimum order those artists have to meet.

I'm just curious how this minimum works. Can you provide some more info, or a link to the details? The reason I ask is I've sold albums through CDBaby and wasn't aware of anything of the sort.

Actually, Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] tells me that "CD Baby has no minimum sales requirement for members; an artist who sells only one CD every 20 years would still remain a part of the company's catalogue."

Tunecore only charges you 99 cents to add iTunes distribution for an album.
It's only 99 cents per store actually and you can also put it into Rhapsody, Napster, eMusic, Amazon MP3 and a half dozen other digital distribution stores.
The $31 charge is actually comprised of a $20 flat setup fee for the album per year, plus 99 cents per track (10 tracks avg) and 99 cents for the digital distribution store.
Tunecore does not keep a dime of what you earn from the online stores, after you pay the initial fee,

TuneCore passes 100 percent of Amazon's payout to the artist - about 40 percent of the retail price.

So they don't take a 60% cut...that's what amazon takes. However, that makes it sound like they take their $31 upfront and that's it. Nothing per disk. So if you sell 1 million CDs, they just get $31. No way. They've got to be getting something back from amazon. Their take is buried somewhere in that 60% cut that amazon takes.

TuneCore don't do the disk printing; that's done via Amazon's Disk on Demand service, which is actually performed by CreateSpace.

The service that TuneCore provides is that it handles submission of your album to a whole bunch of online music download stores, like Amazon, eMusic, iTunes, Napster etc. I think from skimming its faq it also handles receiving your payment all into one account.

Therefore, as they say, all of the money Amazon pay goes into your account.

They've been doing this for a little while, but now with the link with Amazon Disk on Demand, albums submitted to TuneCore can for the first time be bought on physical CDs.

As the author of the summary, I would like to respond to your statement of "Too bad read the read the fucking summary is retarded." I assume that you are referring to the quality of the summary although your sentence is a bit difficult for me to parse. In that case, I appreciate your constructive criticism and would like thank you for making me a better person and Slashdot user.

I hope that someday I might become as gifted at using the word "fuck" as you and perhaps I can beat my apparent bout with down syndrome that you so generously apply to every user of this entire site.

I'm sorry my stories don't pass 'journalistic muster.' I read the entire FAQ and didn't see anything about said muster, could you please expound upon that claim that submissions must pass it?

Also, I believe you are misplacing your disgust with the Firehose and directing it at users. This confuses me, as the users did not implement it. What confuses me even more is that it takes an action by you, drinkypoo, to get to said Firehose in order to 'rate' stories. You curse this UI yet you obviously used it and saw my story in Firehose.

As always, I love you dearly with all my heart and remember to tell drinkyurine that I miss him. Please accept my apologies for such a bad summary and don't let this obstruct our friendship which is sometimes as delicate as a flower covered in dew on a crisp summer morn.

Congratulations on living up to the minimum possible standards. Making slashdot grate...

I can't tell which part of my daily duties you're referring to here, is it the endless sets of metal sheets that I cut slashes and dots into that are later installed in the streets to prevent debris from entering and clogging my fair city's sewer system? Or are you referring to my ability to cause friction between Slashdot and another object/site by rubbing them together forcefully? I must say, I'm guilty of both!

No, no. The firehose sucks, AND the people using it suck.

Something about this sentence is very peculiar considering that in your prior post you say:

I sometimes use the firehose, but it is WAY too fucking painful these days.

I'm not a logician but if all who use the firehose suck... and you yourself use it... Wait, I think I've got it but I'm not sure. I shall construct a predicate calculus of these two rules and get back to you once I can conclude something from them.

Digital downloads are a bit difficult to sell at a concert. Yeah, you could give them a flyer showing them where to go an itunes/amazon/whatever, but then you have to hope they actually bother to go make the purchase when they get home. Selling it to them on the spot, while they are still excited about your music, is probably better.

Digital downloads are a bit difficult to sell at a concert. (...) then you have to hope they actually bother to go make the purchase when they get home.

Uuh.. you know it's 2009, right ? You can whip out your iPhone, start up iTunes and buy and download the album right there, on the spot. You don't even have to wait in line at the stall that sells the CD's.

I find it hard to see much success when you're selling a CD at twice the normal retail price.

From the article: "If one of Amazon's 80 million customers buys your 10-song CD on Amazon for $8.98, you'll receive $3.59."They are not selling the CDs at twice the normal price. The $31 is the annual fee the artist pays to be included on TuneCore, not the cost of a CD.

Generally speaking, you're right, but there's no reason "sic" can't be used in that fashion. Use of "sic" is meant simply to draw the reader's attention to something that the author wrote, and the editor knows is wrong, but doesn't feel justified in correcting. I would think that factual errors are at least as likely to fall into this category as typographical errors, which should just be corrected without comment by the editor, in most cases.

1. Downloading and copying original CD's is still considered "illegal" by a large group of people even though it isn't if you paid for it.2. A lot of people actually like something tangible they can use in their car or they can rip to MP3's themselves.3. Loss of digital media is still a big problem and easier to do in much more ways than a tangible object (it's more likely to have your disk crash than your house burn down and the hard drive doesn't have insurance).4. The current digital solutions are still

Not sure why you were modded troll. amie.st is one of the pioneers in this and they share 70% with the artists, not 40% like Amazon. They also attempt to do promotion for new bands. Granted they don't have the muscle of the RIAA but they have been working hard, in the shadows mostly, for years. In the meantime most of the world ignores them whilst maintaining full "crybaby mode" over the RIAA.

That is not to say I'm not pleased that Amazon is in the game--the more the better. but swing over to http:/ [amie.st]

Once you consider the manufacturing and distribution costs it doesn't look so bad. Compare it with CD Baby, who are an independent distributor, they take $4 per CD for warehousing and distribution, and you supply them with CDs which will cost you about $1 a pop to make in 'small band' quantities. You'll make a tiny bit more profit that way, but there is an up-front investment and the strong possibility of not breaking even to worry about.